Our strong recommendations include a ban on paid prioritization, so that internet providers cannot arbitrarily slow down certain websites or services, and no second-class status for wireless Internet when it comes to net neutrality.

Chairman Genachowski recently outlined a proposal for Internet policy which unfortunately falls far short in these and other areas, and would completely fail to fulfill President Obama's promise to protect an open Internet for all Americans. The FCC is scheduled to vote on the issue on Dec. 21.

"This is a make-or-break issue, and the signatories on this letter are unequivocal in their demand that fatal flaws with Chairman Genachowski's draft proposal be fixed immediately," Sascha Meinrath, director of New America Foundation's Open Technology Initiative, said on Friday.

The FCC is scheduled to take up the contentious open Internet rules at its Dec. 21 meeting.

No, I'm not making this up. AT&T and its ally/rival Verizon are claiming in legal filings with the FCC that regulation of the Internet would deprive them of the right to free speech. Other big quasi-monopolies have used that argument to get what they want; the very same claim years ago by cable TV operators succeeded in allowing Comcast, Time Warner, and all the others to keep an iron lock on programming, says Chris Witteman, a communications attorney in San Francisco.

What is this about?

When we log onto the Internet, we take a lot for granted. We assume we'll be able to access any Web site we want, whenever we want, at the fastest speed, whether it's a corporate or mom-and-pop site. We assume that we can use any service we like -- watching online video, listening to podcasts, sending instant messages -- anytime we choose. What makes all these assumptions possible is Net Neutrality.

What is Net Neutrality?

Net Neutrality is the guiding principle that preserves the free and open Internet.

Net Neutrality means that Internet service providers may not discriminate between different kinds of content and applications online. It guarantees a level playing field for all Web sites and Internet technologies.

Net Neutrality is the reason the Internet has driven economic innovation, democratic participation and free speech online. It protects the consumer's right to use any equipment, content, application or service without interference from the network provider. With Net Neutrality, the network's only job is to move data -- not to choose which data to privilege with higher quality service.

Who wants to get rid of Net Neutrality?

The nation's largest telephone and cable companies -- including AT&T, Verizon, Comcast and Time Warner Cable -- want to be Internet gatekeepers, deciding which Web sites go fast or slow and which won't load at all.

They want to tax content providers to guarantee speedy delivery of their data. And they want to discriminate in favor of their own search engines, Internet phone services and streaming video -- while slowing down or blocking services offered by their competitors.

These companies have a new vision for the Internet. Instead of a level playing field, they want to reserve express lanes for their own content and services -- or those of big corporations that can afford the steep tolls -- and leave the rest of us on a winding dirt road.

The big phone and cable companies are spending hundreds of millions of dollars lobbying Congress and the Federal Communications Commission to gut Net Neutrality, putting the future of the Internet at risk.

Is Net Neutrality a new regulation?

Absolutely not. Net Neutrality has been part of the Internet since its inception. Pioneers like Vint Cerf and Sir Tim Berners-Lee, the inventor of the World Wide Web, always intended the Internet to be a neutral network. And non-discrimination provisions like Net Neutrality have governed the nation's communications networks since the 1920s.

But as a consequence of a 2005 decision by the Federal Communications Commission, Net Neutrality -- the foundation of the free and open Internet -- was put in jeopardy. Now, cable and phone company lobbyists are pushing to block legislation that would reinstate Net Neutrality.

Writing Net Neutrality into law would preserve the freedoms we currently enjoy on the Internet. For all their talk about "deregulation," the cable and phone giants don't want real competition. They want special rules written in their favor.

Isn't the threat to Net Neutrality just hypothetical?

No. By far the most significant evidence of the network owners' plans to discriminate is their stated intent to do so.

The CEOs of all the largest telecom companies have been clear about their plans to build a tiered Internet with faster service for the select few companies willing or able to pay exorbitant tolls. Net Neutrality advocates are not imagining a doomsday scenario. We are taking the telecom execs at their word.

So far, we've only seen the tip of the iceberg. But numerous examples show that without Net Neutrality requirements, Internet service providers will discriminate against content and competing services they don't like. This type of censorship will become the norm unless we act now. Given the chance, these gatekeepers will consistently put their own interests before the public good.

The cable and phone companies already dominate the broadband marketplace. And when network owners start abusing their control of the pipes, there will be nowhere else for consumers to turn.

Isn't this just a battle between giant corporations?

No. Our opponents would like to paint this debate as a clash of corporate titans. But the real story is the millions of everyday people fighting for their Internet freedom.

Small business owners benefit from an Internet that allows them to compete directly -- not one where they can't afford the price of entry. Net Neutrality ensures that innovators can start small and dream big about being the next EBay or Google without facing insurmountable hurdles. Without Net Neutrality, startups and entrepreneurs will be muscled out of the marketplace by big corporations that pay for a top spot on the Web.

If Congress turns the Internet over to the telecom giants, everyone who uses the Internet will be affected. Connecting to your office could take longer if you don't purchase your carrier's preferred applications. Sending family photos and videos could slow to a crawl. Web pages you always use for online banking, access to health care information, planning a trip, or communicating with friends and family could fall victim to pay-for-speed schemes.

Independent voices and political groups are especially vulnerable. Costs will skyrocket to post and share video and audio clips, silencing bloggers and amplifying the voices of the big media companies. Political organizing could be slowed by the handful of dominant Internet providers that ask advocacy groups or candidates to pay to join the "fast lane."

What else are the phone and cable companies not telling the truth about?

AT&T and other telecom giants have funded a massive misinformation campaign, filled with deceptive advertising and "Astroturf" groups like Hands Off the Internet and NetCompetition.org.

What's at stake if we lose Net Neutrality?

The consequences of a world without Net Neutrality would be devastating. Innovation would be stifled, competition limited, and access to information restricted. Consumer choice and the free market would be sacrificed to the interests of a few corporations.

On the Internet, consumers are in ultimate control -- deciding between content, applications and services available anywhere, no matter who owns the network. There's no middleman. But without Net Neutrality, the Internet will look more like cable TV. Network owners will decide which channels, content and applications are available; consumers will have to choose from their menu.

The free and open Internet brings with it the revolutionary possibility that any Internet site could have the reach of a TV or radio station. The loss of Net Neutrality would end this unparalleled opportunity for freedom of expression.

The Internet has always been driven by innovation. Web sites and services succeed or fail on their own merits. Without Net Neutrality, decisions now made collectively by millions of users will be made in corporate boardrooms. The choice we face now is whether we can choose the content and services we want, or whether the broadband barons will choose for us.

What's happening in Congress?

In August 2009, Reps. Edward Markey (D-Mass.) and Anna Eshoo (D-Calif.) introduced the Internet Freedom Preservation Act of 2009 (H.R. 3458). This landmark legislation would protect Net Neutrality under the Communications Act, safeguarding the future of the open Internet and protecting Internet users from discrimination online.

The SavetheInternet.com coalition also applauds the recent passage of the American Reinvestment and Recovery Act. The law, which allocates $7.2 billion to expand broadband access and adoption, attaches open Internet conditions to all broadband networks built with public funds.

But these conditions only apply to the broadband lines built with federal stimulus money. We need to make Net Neutrality the law of the land to ensure that all networks are open and free from discrimination. That’s why the Internet Freedom Preservation Act of 2009 (H.R. 3458) is so important. Take action today to pass this bill and to make Net Neutrality the law.

Who's part of the SavetheInternet.com Coalition?

The SavetheInternet.com Coalition is made up of hundreds of groups from across the political spectrum that are concerned about maintaining a free and open Internet. Click here to see a list of coalition members.

No corporation or political party funds our efforts. We simply agree to a statement of principles in support of Internet freedom.

The coalition is being coordinated by Free Press, a national, nonpartisan organization working to reform the media. Please complete this brief survey if your group would like to join this broad, bipartisan effort to save the Internet.

Who else supports Net Neutrality?

The supporters of Net Neutrality include leading tech companies such as Amazon.com, EBay, Intel, Microsoft, Facebook, and Yahoo. Prominent national figures such as Internet pioneer Vint Cerf, Stanford law professor Lawrence Lessig and FCC Commission Michael Copps have called for stronger Net Neutrality protections.

President Barack Obama himself pledged to “take a back seat to no one” in his commitment to Net Neutrality. And the administration’s technology policies now posted on the White House Web site list Net Neutrality as the top priority.

Editorial boards at the New York Times, Los Angeles Times, San Francisco Chronicle, San Jose Mercury News, Seattle Times, St. Petersburg Times and Christian Science Monitor have all have urged Congress to save the Internet.

Friday, December 10, 2010. Chaos and violence continue, 'peace ambassador' Moqtada issues a new decree, the stalemate continues in Baghdad, the US Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy continues throughout the world, attacks on women and rape survivors continue, and more.Yesterday, "Alsumaria News marked its first anniversary". In Iraq, any press milestones qualify as news since the country remains a war zone and press operating there ends up attacked by many governments. Alsumaira News is a division of Alsumaria TV which started in September 2004. Last month, the TV channel Al-Baghdadia announced its departure after being targeted by Nouri al-Maliki and shut down. Meanwhile, at the start of this month, Reporters Without Borders noted al Qaeda in Mesopotami had reportedly issued threats against Al-Iraqiya, Al-Farat and Al-Sumaria TV. The Committee To Protect Journalists counts 220 journalists [and "media workers" -- we label them all journalists] killed in Iraq since the start of the Iraq War. In September, Reporters Without Borders issued [PDF format warning] "The Iraq War: A Heavy Death Toll For The Media, 2003 - 2010." The report uses the term "media professionals" and counts "close to 230" killed throughout the ongoing war with 172 of them classified as journalists. Reporters Without Borders notes the following journalists have been targeted this year:Mazen Mardan Al-Baghdadi, Tahrir Kadhem Jawad, Alaa Mohsen, Safaa Al-Dine Abdul Hameed, Riyad As-Saray, Kamal Qassim Mohamed, Sardasht Osman, Omar Ibrahim Al-Jabouri, Munir Assa'd, Moataz Al-Mashhadani, Akram Abbas, Haidar Mohamed, Muayad Al-Lami, and Maytham Al-Ahmed,In addition, the Committee to Protect Journalists notes that Saad al-Aossi has been imprisoned since April 14, 2010: "Al-Aossi, editor-in-chief of the critical weekly Al-Shahid, was taken from his home in Baghdad by a 'mixed force of police officers and soldiers,' his brother told local reporters. Local press freedom advocates and journalists said al-Aossi was being held at a facility administered by the Counter-Terrorism Force, a unit responsible for high-level security cases that reports directly to Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki. Al-Aossi was detained six days after publishing an opinion piece that said al-Maliki was secretive in filling high-level government positions. The government would not disclose any information about al-Aossi, including his whereabouts and legal status. Al-Maliki did not respond to CPJ's inquiries." That's Nouri. The thug some applauded. Some like our modern day Brenda Starr: Nir Rosen. Nir had some "hope"s back in February of this year which he expressed publicly including the "hope Maliki wins" and the "hope Maliki violates the constitution, acts in some kind of authoritarian way to make sure he wins the elections". How very telling. Again to Reporters Without Borders issued [PDF format warning] "The Iraq War: A Heavy Death Toll For The Media, 2003 - 2010." In 2006, Nuri al-Maliki's government regularly threatened to shut down certain newspapers after accusing them of incitement to violence. Television networks were also pointed out as being responsible for stirring up ethnic and religious passions. They were prohibited from broadcasting segments that showed blood or murder scenes. On 5 November 2006, the Minister of the Interior decided to close down the Sunni television networks Al-Zawra and Salah-Eddin for having broadcast footage of demonstrators waving pictures of former dictator Saddam Hussein and protesting against his capital sentence. Both stations are still closed down. In 2007, additional restrictions were imposed on the media. In May, the authorities banned journalists from filming bomb-stricken areas. In November of that year, they were also prohibited from going to the Kandil mountains on the Iraqi-Turkish border to meet with PKK rebels.But, hey, what does free speech matter? Especially to those like Nir Rosen who publicly express desires that Iraq's Constitution is trashed by Nouri? Please tell us all, who will help Iraq from these 'helpers'? And of course the US government (and its stooges) would cheer for Nouri (and cheat for him), he is not merely their puppet, he is their reflection. This week Frankie Donlon (Point Park Globe) reminded how the US government punishes journalists:Many photographers, such as Zoriah Miller and Stefan Zaklin, have been black-listed from photographing in Iraq. Both photographers pushed the limits of the restrictions and published disturbing but authentic war photographs. Both photographers have now been heavily restricted and are under observation by the U.S. government.Zoriah Miller's photograph was an image of Marines killed in a suicide bomber attack. Miller then posted the photographs on his personal website and was forbidden to work in the Marine Corps' controlled areas. The image does portray a harsher view of the war than I am accustomed to seeing, but no faces are revealed and nothing identifies the person in the image. The image is in black and white and features Marines' bodies lying in the rubble.Stefan Zaklin took his photograph for the European Pressphoto Agency. The photograph depicts a soldier who was shot and killed in Fallujah, in a house used as a base for insurgents. The photograph, however, was only run in European publications. Zaklin was then banned from working with any military unit.Still no executive government in Iraq but UPI, that eternal optimist, insists that Nouri and the gang "are beginning to sort out key ministerial positions in an effort to form the next government". March 7th, Iraq concluded Parliamentary elections. The Guardian's editorial board noted in August, "These elections were hailed prematurely by Mr Obama as a success, but everything that has happened since has surely doused that optimism in a cold shower of reality." 163 seats are needed to form the executive government (prime minister and council of ministers). When no single slate wins 163 seats (or possibly higher -- 163 is the number today but the Parliament added seats this election and, in four more years, they may add more which could increase the number of seats needed to form the executive government), power-sharing coalitions must be formed with other slates, parties and/or individual candidates. (Eight Parliament seats were awarded, for example, to minority candidates who represent various religious minorities in Iraq.) Ayad Allawi is the head of Iraqiya which won 91 seats in the Parliament making it the biggest seat holder. Second place went to State Of Law which Nouri al-Maliki, the current prime minister, heads. They won 89 seats. Nouri made a big show of lodging complaints and issuing allegations to distract and delay the certification of the initial results while he formed a power-sharing coalition with third place winner Iraqi National Alliance -- this coalition still does not give them 163 seats. November 10th a power sharing deal resulted in the Parliament meeting for the second time and voting in a Speaker. And then Iraqiya felt double crossed on the deal and the bulk of their members stormed out of the Parliament. David Ignatius (Washington Post) explains, "The fragility of the coalition was dramatically obvious Thursday as members of the Iraqiya party, which represents Sunnis, walked out of Parliament, claiming that they were already being double-crossed by Maliki. Iraqi politics is always an exercise in brinkmanship, and the compromises unfortunately remain of the save-your-neck variety, rather than reflecting a deeper accord. " After that, Jalal Talabani was voted President of Iraq. Talabani then named Nouri as the prime minister-delegate. If Nouri can meet the conditions outlined in Article 76 of the Constitution (basically nominate ministers for each council and have Parliament vote to approve each one with a minimum of 163 votes each time and to vote for his council program) within thirty days, he becomes the prime minister. If not, Talabani must name another prime minister-delegate. . In 2005, Iraq took four months and seven days to pick a prime minister-delegate. It took eight months and two days to name Nouri as prime minister-delegate. His first go-round, on April 22, 2006, his thirty day limit kicked in. May 20, 2006, he announced his cabinet -- sort of. Sort of because he didn't nominate a Minister of Defense, a Minister of Interior and a Minister of a Natioanl Security. This was accomplished, John F. Burns wrote in "For Some, a Last, Best Hope for U.S. Efforts in Iraq" (New York Times), only with "muscular" assistance from the Bush White House. Nouri declared he would be the Interior Ministry temporarily. Temporarily lasted until June 8, 2006. This was when the US was able to strong-arm, when they'd knocked out the other choice for prime minister (Ibrahim al-Jaafari) to install puppet Nouri and when they had over 100,000 troops on the ground in Iraq. Nouri had no competition. That's very different from today. The Constitution is very clear and it is doubtful his opponents -- including within his own alliance -- will look the other way if he can't fill all the posts in 30 days. As Leila Fadel (Washington Post) observes, "With the three top slots resolved, Maliki will now begin to distribute ministries and other top jobs, a process that has the potential to be as divisive as the initial phase of government formation." Jane Arraf (Christian Science Monitor) points out, "Maliki now has 30 days to decide on cabinet posts - some of which will likely go to Iraqiya - and put together a full government. His governing coalition owes part of its existence to followers of hard-line cleric Muqtada al Sadr, leading Sunnis and others to believe that his government will be indebted to Iran." The stalemate ends when the country has a prime minister. It is now nine months, three days and counting. Thursday November 25th, Nouri was finally 'officially' named prime minister-designate. Leila Fadel (Washington Post) explained, "In 30 days, he is to present his cabinet to parliament or lose the nomination." Steven Lee Myers (New York Times) added, "Even if Mr. Maliki meets the 30-day deadline in late December -- which is not a certainty, given the chronic disregard for legal deadlines in Iraqi politics -- the country will have spent more than nine months under a caretaker government without a functioning legislature. Many of Iraq's most critical needs -- from basic services to investment -- have remained unaddressed throughout the impasse." Jane Arraf (Al Jazeera) offered, "He has an extremely difficult task ahed of him, these next 30 days are going to be a very tough sell for all of these parties that all want something very important in this government. It took a record eight months to actually come up with this coalition, but now what al-Maliki has to do is put all those people in the competing positions that backed him into slots in the government and he has a month to day that from today."

Yesterday's snapshot noted: "Al Iraq Net is reporting that Moqtada al-Sadr's bloc is getting the post of Deputy Prime Minister." Alsumaira TV confirms that the Deputy Prime Minister post is going to the al-Sadr bloc. But remember, we told you months ago how Nouri was overpromising what he could actually offer if he did become prime minister -- promising many different people the same posts? UPI reports that there are going to be three deputy prime ministers and, it gets better, three vice presidents. For those who mislaid their trading cards, the current exile government in Baghdad has two deputy prime ministers and two vice presidents. Looks like Nir Rosen got his wish for Nouri to trash the Constitution.Article 138 of Iraq's Constitution is rather clear -- not that anyone appears to have read it, certainly not Nouri -- that: "The Council of Representatives shall elect the President of the State and two Vice Presidents who shall form a Council called the 'Presidency Council,' which shall be elected by one list and with a two-thirds majority." The Council of Representatives is the Parliament. So Nouri's done some extra-Constutional work both in creating a new vice president and in terms of overseeing the selection. Khalid al-Ansary (Reuters) reports that Moqtada al-Sar has issued his latest decree insisting that "bars and liquor shops in Iraq" be shut down as well as Baghdad nightclubs. al-Ansary quotes an Iraqi writer (unnamed) who states, "What is going on are attempts to turn Iraq into an Islamic republic similar to the one in Iran." Wednesday, at least seven Iranian pilgrims were injured in a Baghdad roadside bombing. Press TV notes that Hassan Qashqavi, Iran's Deputy Foreign Minister, is calling for tighter security and condemning a wave of attacks. The segment most targeted in the last two months are Iraqi Christians. This latest wave of attacks began October 31st with the assault on Our Lady of Salvation Church in Baghdad. Prashant Rao (AFP) reports that mass was held today at the church: "Teary-eyed parishioners, diplomats, and politicians gathered in the Sayidat al-Nejat (Our Lady of Salvation) Syriac Catholic church, seated on plastic garden chairs as priests read aloud the names of the 46 people who died, recited prayers and sang hymns. Outside the church, dozens of armed soldiers, policemen and private security contractors stood guard as nearby streets were closed off to vehicle traffic, and men and women alike were frisked on entry." Jomana Karadsheh (CNN) adds, "Rafah Butros sat alone, sobbing in a corner as priests prayed for peace and forgiveness. She had not been to church in three years until October 31, when her cousin threatened to stop visiting her if she did not go. That day, militants stormed Baghdad's Our Lady of Salvation Church, killing 51 congregants and two priests in a brutal attack that authorities said was the worst in a recent surge of violence targeting Iraq's Christians. Butros survived. Her cousin, a 27-year-old priest, did not." And for those unaware, the bulk of alcohol sales in Iraq come via Christian and other religious minority vendors. Yes, Moqtada al-Sadr is launching a new attack on Christians. But, hey, he's got a few more months to go before he can launch more attacks on Iraq's LGBT community -- calls for violent deaths, etc. All the things The Nation and other 'independent' periodicals 'forgot' to tell you about. John Pilger wonders "Why are wars not being reported honestly?" (Guardian -- link has text and video):The sheer magnitude of Iraqi suffering in the onslaught had little place in the news. Standing outside 10 Downing St, on the night of the invasion, Andrew Marr, then the BBC's political editor, declared, "[Tony Blair] said that they would be able to take Baghdad without a bloodbath and that in the end the Iraqis would be celebrating, and on both of those points he has been proved conclusively right . . ." I asked Marr for an interview, but received no reply. In studies of the television coverage by the University of Wales, Cardiff, and Media Tenor, the BBC's coverage was found to reflect overwhelmingly the government line and that reports of civilian suffering were relegated. Media Tenor places the BBC and America's CBS at the bottom of a league of western broadcasters in the time they allotted to opposition to the invasion. "I am perfectly open to the accusation that we were hoodwinked," said Jeremy Paxman, talking about Iraq's non-existent weapons of mass destruction to a group of students last year. "Clearly we were." As a highly paid professional broadcaster, he omitted to say why he was hoodwinked.Dan Rather, who was the CBS news anchor for 24 years, was less reticent. "There was a fear in every newsroom in America," he told me, "a fear of losing your job . . . the fear of being stuck with some label, unpatriotic or otherwise." Rather says war has made "stenographers out of us" and that had journalists questioned the deceptions that led to the Iraq war, instead of amplifying them, the invasion would not have happened. This is a view now shared by a number of senior journalists I interviewed in the US.

Next he can ask why they aren't being reported on at all. That is the case for many outlets. Turning to some of today's violence, Reuters reports that a Baghdad roadside bombing has left 2 Iraqi police officers injured, a second Baghdad roadside bombing has claimed 1 life and left five other people injured and a Tikrit police checkpoint was attacked resulting in the deaths of 2 police officers with another two left injured.Beat down in the market, stoned to death in the plazaRaped on the hillside under the gun from LA to GazaA house made of cardboard living close to the railSomebody's mama, somebody's daughterSomebody's jailAnd I feel the witch in my veinsI feel the mother in my shoeI feel the scream in my soulThe blood as I sing the ancient blueThey burned in the millionsI still smell the fire in my grandma's hairThe war against women rages onBeware of the fairytaleSomebody's mama, somebody's daughterSomebody's jail-- "Somebody's Jail," written by Holly Near, first appears on her Show UpAs with Tuesday's snapshot and Wednesday's snapshot, and Thursday's snapshot we have to deal with the attacks on two women over rape charges. Maia (The Hand Mirror) explains, "The charges are actually really clear cut: he had sex with one woman while she was asleep, and he didn't stop when another woman said stop. It doesn't require a very in depth and complex understanding of consent to understand that that is rape. But there is a constant narrative that anything other than stranger rape where force is used is somehow a lesser form of rape. That narrative is really damaging to rape survivors." wiki leaks observes, "But Assange's status as embattled warrior for free speech is taken as giving permission -- by those on the left as well as right – to indulge in the basest slut-shaming and misogyny. It's terrifying to witness how swiftly rape orthodoxies reassert themselves: that impugning a man's sexual propriety is a political act, that sexual assault complainants are prone to a level of mendacity others are not (and, in this case, deserving of the same crowd-sourced scrutiny afforded leaked diplomatic cables), that not all forms of non-consensual sex count as 'rape-rape'." Amelia Gentleman (Guardian) speaks with the attorney of the two women, Claes Borgstrom, and reports:In an interview at his fifth-floor office in central Stockholm, he continued: "What is going on now is very, very unfair to them because they are being pointed at as if they have started a conspiracy against Assange and WikiLeaks, and that is not true. There is nothing wrong with their reputation and they have done nothing wrong in going to the police. What they are going through is unfair and absurd."

He questioned whether the women would have pressed charges had they known in advance how their reputations would be attacked. "If they had known what was going to happen, maybe they would not have gone to the police at all … I would not have done it," he said.

Esther Addley (Guardian) observes, "Rarely can there have been a rape case where the personal details of the alleged victims have been so eagerly sought out by so many. "Is [Miss A] a lesbian?" asks one blog, accompanying its text with photographs of Miss A alongside another woman. 'If [she] is gay, and she sleeps with Assange, that's a contradiction. So, I'm inviting the blogosphere to look for the evidence. Be a WikiSleuth! There must be a lot of people who know about [Miss A] and her behavior. Speak up!" And the tarring and feathering has come from all over including Coward Matthew Rothschild. Matty who wants Russ Feingold to run for president . . . except when he doesn't. (We'll be ripping apart his latest 'reasoning' at Third.) Matty who wants to hurl the c-word at women in 2008 but was too cowardly to be upfront about his sexism so he hid behind The Weekly Standard. Matty who questioned the women and declares himself a Socialist and is CEO of The Progressive. Our 'friend,' women's 'great friend,' Matty Rothschild who wanted to insist this week "I take all allegations of rape and sexual misconduct seriously" seconds before adding that the alleged behavior of the women just struck him as fishy. Maia (The Hand Mirror) explains the harm that's being done:

But I think that defenders of Julian Assanger do the most damage when they construct a way that rape victims behave and imply that the woman involved isn't acting like a rape victim: she tweeted about him, or she seemed happy, or she saw him again.I lose it at this point. There is no way that rape victims act - there is no way that rape victims don't act. Seriously. If you don't know this then you have no right to say a word about rape.It does so much harm to so many women, the idea that there's a way that rape victims act. It's not just some idea that you're spinning off into cyber-space. It's something that women who are going through trauma have to struggle through - their own, and other people's expectations of how they should be behaving. And it doesn't stop - the idea of the acceptable behaviour of a rape victim gets used as a weapon again and again.Most rape myths are about women, about attacking suvivors of rape, discrediting them trashing them - and there's been a lot of that. But some are about men John Pilger said that he had a very high regard for Julian Assange. And? The rhetorical rapist - the scary man, who no-one holds in high regard - is a weapon that is used against actual victims of rape all the time.And what is most ridiculous about this spreading of rape myths by left-wing supporters of wikileaks is that these myths are completely unnecessary to stand in solidarity with the wikileaks project.It is states and companies that are attacking Wikileaks and Julian Assange, not two women. It is perfectly possible to criticise the actions of prosecuters, interpol, judges and government's without invoking rape myths.

We've seen the sexism of the left yet again. You get the usual women who operate as instruments of patriarchy, women who either have done nothing for women's rights (Naomi Klein would fit in here) or who lost interest in feminism long, long ago (Naomi Wolf). They need these women to hide behind. They've rewarded these _____ _____ types for years because those women only fawn over them and never 'make trouble' by noting, for example, their sexual harassment practices. And the men form a circle whenever they fear one of them might be held accountable for something that, let's be honest, is fairly common behavior for the males at the top of the power pyramid. Cute phone call this week from the friend of a media 'god' who wanted to know if I was planning on outing him for his attempted rape some years and years ago? (Newsflash, Rebecca outed him at her site back in 2005.) I bet there are a lot of conversations like that, a lot of men on the left sweating it out, and I bet that has a lot to do with the attacks on these two women. Attack them and, hopefully, scare off all women. The attacks send a message and it's damn hard to believe that the message is unintended.

It's similar to their attacks on Hillary Clinton and it's the same gang. People like Danny Schechter, for example, who repeated sexist attacks on Hillary at his website and then, when Ruth was calling him out -- RIGHTLY --.at her website because he bills himself as a media critic but managed to go the whole year and after without ever noticing the sexism, Danny suddenly cared and rushed forward with e-mails. (Ruth never told me and I never asked. It was obvious that Ruth was doing a hard hitting series and that only one person -- Ruth didn't name the man at her website -- had a vested interest in attempting to derail Ruth's series.) So Ruth calls him out and the best he can offer is that if Hillary didn't call it out (she did call it out) then why should he? If you're going to call yourself a media critic, it's incumbent upon you to call it out. Not that we expected it, we've certainly gotten a ton of e-mails filled with allegations of sexual harassment and sexism in hiring, retaining and pay at Media Channel. [Sidebar: Ava and I were not paid when Media Channel reposted our article. I've never discussed that here and I'm not sure I've discussed it at Third. We have no business relationship -- and have never had any business relationship -- with Media Channel. Had we been asked about our article being reposted, we would have said no. We would have said no because (a) Media Channel is notoriously sexist and (b) they have received Soros money and we didn't want to be tainted with blood money. Repeating, "Friendly faces aren't who we meet" was written -- by Ava and myself -- for Third and published there. We were never asked about it being reposted. The first we knew of it was when e-mails arrived at Third. And it did nothing but cause us problem -- with women who've suffered from Media Channel's work practices and with those who rightly decry the blood money Soros amassed. And in this sidebar, you've got a pretty telling comment on the sexism of Media Channel. Without ever contacting us, Ava and my work -- the work of two women -- was reposted in full at a site that seeks donations and we were never thanked or notified. Is that really how they would have treated two men? No, it's not. And that's not a whine for money. Ava and I both will never, ever hurt for money. It is noting that our work product was used without our permission, without notification to us and distributed on a site that seeks money for the work 'they' (the 'mens') do. It's very telling and jibes completely with the stories Danny's ex-girlfriends been informing many women of.]

While we have tried to avoid that topic, Ava and I called out Danny's bulls**t that Tina Turner owed Ike something. Tina (whom I know and love) owes Ike nothing. He was a terrorist. It's cute the way these Danny Schechter types whine about abuse except when it's done to women. And what's he done all week? Passed on false information. When Judith Miller did that, he was outraged. But he thinks as long as he quotes false information from others (presumably from others, his new layout makes it impossible to tell when he's writing or when he's quoting) it's okay and his hands aren't dirty. He's quoted disgusting trash and linked to false trash attacking the women. As late as yesterday, a whine that no one would even say what the charges were. Uh, charges were reported Tuesday by many outlets including the Guardian which live blogged the court appearance. That's a fact that and facts aren't as easy to bend so liars ignore them. And December 8th, Danny pimped: "Roman Polanski, who during his Hollywood time recongizably raped a minor who later forgave him."

What the hell is that? Is murder dependent upon what the victim may have thought of the attacker? Then why would rape be?

I know Roman. I have no respect for him, but I know him. And he damn well knew what he was doing. But it's cute the way murder is 'real crime' and rape is just a 'so-so crime' that can be dimissed for any number of reasons. Torture's the same way. If we're talking about it under the Pinochet regime, it's torture and unspeakable. If it's a man torturing his girlfriend,lover, wife, it's fine and dandy and understandable and a personal matter. As Marlo Thomas has so often noted, before the second wave of feminism, domestic abuse didn't even have a name. That's the world that the attackers on the women promote: When victims didn't speak out.

And I just mentioned Pinochet. Augusto Pinochet is a War Criminal. And a US-backed one. The US-backed and funded coup that brought him into power -- and assasinated Salvado Allende and Chile's hopes of a free society -- launched non-stop torture. It's funny that so many lefties overlook the way women were targeted specifically. The easiest starting point? Women being attacked by the junta's military for wearing pants. They were forced back into dresses. It's not that different from what's taken place in Afghanistan or what they've pretty much succeeded in doing in Iraq -- instute clothing 'purity' for women. But don't look for Danny Schechter or burqa loving Naomi Wolf to tell you about that. After all 'real problems' are the ones that effect men only. What was done to the women of Chile was far more brutal than our 'brave' left ever wants to talk about.

But women are always under attack, even from our 'friends.' And women are always expendable. That's the history in the US. Wait for the vote, wait for ERA, take a hit for the team, again and again and again. Rape is a real crime. Julian Assange may or may not be guilty. I have no idea. I've expressed my hope that he's not. I've not attacked him. It's a shame that so many feel attacking is the way to go when it comes to women. It's not cute, it's not funny and it hurts women. Again, read Ann's "This rape survivor says: Naomi Wolf, go f**k yourself." And if this is still an issue come Monday, we'll note what the attackers don't want noted but the past can be a portent.

Staying on the topic of discrimination and oppression: Don't Ask, Don't Tell. The latest Gallup Poll finds that 67% of respondents would vote in favor of repealing Don't Ask, Don't Tell -- the policy by which the US military regularly launches witch hunts. And yet Thursday Don't Ask, Don't Tell was up for another vote in the Senate (it's in the Defense Authorization bill). And how did that go? Mark Sappenfield (Christian Science Monitor) reports that 57 senators voted to advance the bill to the floor of the Senate (for a vote) and 40 voted not to advance it. (60 votes are needed to advance it to the floor.) The House has already passed this bill. Not just voted to vote on it, they've passed it. Before the mid-terms, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid refused to allow Republicans into the process and they responded by refusing to allow a floor vote on the Defense Authorization.

So did Harry Reid's ineptitude kill it again?Lisa Mascaro (Los Angeles Times) reports, "Some Republicans do support a repeal of the 'don't ask, don't tell' policy but objected to how Democrats proceeded in bringing the legislation to the floor." Mark Thompson (Time magazine) makes this call, "The move all but kills any chance of over-turning the 17-year old ban on gays serving openly in the U.S. military for the foreseeable future."

Washington, DC - U.S. Senator Susan Collins, a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, and the only Senate Republican to vote in favor of a motion to proceed to the Defense Authorization bill which includes language to repeal Don't Ask, Don't Tell, released this statement following today's vote. "It is extremely unfortunate that the Majority Leader scheduled a vote on the Defense Authorization bill today, knowing that it would fail, when he could have chosen another path forward. I am also troubled and perplexed as to why the leader walked away from bipartisan negotiations which were making progress. "This is not only a debate about repealing "Don't Ask, Don't Tell." This bill includes many provisions that are important to the men and women in our military, including a pay raise for troops fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan, a provision to expand the number of mental health providers to care for our service members, and a provision to make it easier for DoD to transfer health care information regarding wounded warriors to the VA. "The bill also includes important provisions for my home State, including investments to modernize and improve the Portsmouth Naval Shipyard Portsmouth Naval Shipyard and authorizing the full funding of ship construction at Bath Iron Works." "That is why Senator Lieberman and I have been working for weeks to negotiate a reasonable agreement that would enable the Senate to pass this important bill. "As the only Republican on the Senate Armed Services Committee to support including a carefully constructed repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell in the Defense Authorization bill, I am disappointed that the Democratic leadership refused to help pave a successful path to the 60 votes needed to consider this legislation. This goal clearly was within reach, but this bill, like so many others, has become an unfortunate victim of politics. "I recognize time is at a premium, but there's no reason why the Majority Leader could not have kept the Senate in session day, night and all weekend in order to finish the bill extending tax relief, the DoD Authorization, and other top legislative priorities. "The leader's decision today was a set-back for proponents of this bill and for efforts to overturn DADT. Senator Lieberman and I will continue our efforts, despite this set back, and will look at other avenues, including introducing a separate, free-standing bill to overturn DADT." Immediately following today's vote, Senator Collins joined Senator Joe Lieberman (I-CT) in introducing a bipartisan stand-alone bill to repeal Don't Ask, Don't Tell that is similar to the provision included in the Fiscal Year 2011 National Defense Authorization Act.

And the two senators that support repeal but voted against advancing the bill to the Senate Floor? Mark Sappenfield (Christian Science Monitor) explains, "But Senators Brown and Murkowski, as well as other Republican moderates, are holding firm on their pledge not to allow any business to take place until the Obama-GOP tax deal has been passed." KTVA reports, "Repeatedly over the last week, Sen. Murkowski said she would vote to repeal the law if democrats allowed unlimited debate and amendments to the Defense Reauthorization Act, which includes the repeal of 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell'." So despite Senator John McCain vowing last Friday that the measure wouldn't make it to the floor, Harry Reid thought he could ignore discussions and promises and just push the measure through?

"The Senate's failure to allow a vote on 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' repeal is a huge disgrace and disservice to our country. Senators had an opportunity — and an obligation — to move toward ending an outdated, unnecessary and costly policy that discriminates against courageous and qualified people willing to risk their lives by serving in the military. How many more personal and painful stories of discrimination must these lawmakers hear before they act to end this harmful policy? How many more exhaustive Pentagon studies need to be done that affirm it's time to end the ban? Three-quarters of Americans say 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' should be repealed, as do top military leaders. People from every background, every faith, every community across the country know that qualified, patriotic Americans willing to risk their lives by serving in the military should be able to do so, free of discrimination. "Despite today's obstructionism by a few politicians, 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' will end. We will continue to work to ensure all qualified Americans who wish to serve their country openly and freely are able to do so. We must, because the lives and livelihoods of thousands of dedicated service members hang in the balance."

To learn more about the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, follow us on Twitter: @TheTaskForce.

–30–

The National Gay and Lesbian Task Force Action Fund, founded in 1974 as the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, Inc., works to build the grassroots political power of the LGBT community to win complete equality. We do this through direct and grassroots lobbying to defeat anti-LGBT ballot initiatives and legislation and pass pro-LGBT legislation and other measures. We also analyze and report on the positions of candidates for public office on issues of importance to the LGBT community. The Task Force Action Fund is a 501(c)(4) non-profit corporation incorporated in New York. Contributions to the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force Action Fund are not tax deductible.

Is Harry Reid serious about repealing Don't Ask, Don't Tell? Is Barack Obama? The little dog and pony show they've been putting on has produced a lot of crap, just no results. TV notes. On PBS' Washington Week, Charles Babington (AP), Jackie Calmes (NYT) and Lori Montgomery (Washington Post) join Gwen around the table and NPR's Tom Gjelten will offer a report on WikiLeaks. Gwen now has a weekly column at Washington Week and the current one is "Deconstructing the President."This week, Bonnie Erbe will sit down with Danielle Belton, Cari Dominguez, Tara Setmayer and Patricia Sosa to discuss the week's news on the latest broadcast of PBS' To The Contrary. And this week's To The Contrary online extra is a discussion on the state of romance. Turning to broadcast TV, Sunday CBS' 60 Minutes offers:

The Next SpeakerRep. John Boehner will become the speaker of the House next month, but few know this Ohio Republican beyond his life in Washington. Lesley Stahl profiles the man whose new role will place him at the top of the Republican Party and third in line for the presidency.

BrazilAs the U.S. and most of the world's countries limp along after the crippling recession, Brazil is off and running with jobs, industry, and resources. The economic juggernaut is poised to become the fifth largest economy in the world. Steve Kroft reports.

Jerry JonesA disappointed Cowboys owner, GM Jerry Jones says even his friend, the late George Steinbrenner, would fire him for the poor performance of his Dallas football team that many predicted would go to the Super Bowl. Scott Pelley reports.

Thursday, December 09, 2010

Those who questioned Maine Republican Sen. Susan Collins's sincerity in wanting to repeal don't ask don't tell (DADT) got their comeuppance when the Republican from Maine did what she hinted she might do when we talked yesterday: She voted for cloture on the motion to reconsider the defense authorization bill (NDAA). But the motion failed 57 to 40. So, now Collins, Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) and others are leading an effort to get it passed as a stand-alone bill in the lame-duck session. The chances of success are slim. But when striking a blow against discrimination and for people's right to basic dignity, it's damned well worth it.

But Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine) — who had protracted negotiations with Reid to win yes votes from her and perhaps five more Republicans, which would have decisively broken the stalemate — accused him of abandoning their talks at the last minute, essentially condemning the legislation to defeat.

“I was extremely disappointed that the Senate majority leader walked away from negotiations in which we were engaged and which were going well,” she said. “There was a clear path forward.”

Washington – Today the Human Rights Campaign, the nation’s largest lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender civil rights organization, called on President Obama to end the legal defense of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” and to halt discharges of lesbian, gay and bisexual service members in the wake of news that the Senate will not finish the job on legislative repeal. As HRC President Joe Solmonese outlined in an October letter, the Administration should call “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” what it is – an unconstitutional and discriminatory law that hurts our national security – and cease its legal defense of the statute. Separately, the President needs to immediately use his powers as Commander in Chief to issue a stop-loss order halting discharges.

“The Senate’s apparent refusal to act on ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ repeal makes Presidential action imperative in order for him to fulfill his state of the union promise,” said HRC President Joe Solmonese. “The only measure of success is an end to the discharges and anything less is unacceptable.”

Under his powers to ensure national security following the September 11 attacks, the President has the ability to issue stop-loss orders preventing certain service members from discharge. Pending an enduring solution to this unjust and discriminatory law, the President can and should suspend DADT-related discharges under the stop-loss provision.

“In this time of war, we cannot sustain a policy that has already deprived our military of thousands of service members, many with critical skills in fighting terrorism,” said Solmonese.

The “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” law has also been embroiled in seemingly endless legal wrangling with the administration defending the law’s constitutionality in court. HRC once again encourages the President to abandon that defense. Should the administration decide to proceed, the President can at least instruct government lawyers to inform the appellate court that the Executive Branch believes “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” to be unconstitutional.

“Every day that 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' is in force, Americans are losing out on the best and brightest service members defending our country,” added Solmonese. “If Congress won’t act, it’s up to the President to clean up the mess they made when they enacted this discriminatory and unconstitutional law nearly two decades ago.”

The Human Rights Campaign is America's largest civil rights organization working to achieve lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender equality. By inspiring and engaging all Americans, HRC strives to end discrimination against LGBT citizens and realize a nation that achieves fundamental fairness and equality for all.

Thursday, Decmeber 9, 2010. Chaos and violence continue, the US military announces another death in Iraq, Moqtada al-Sadr's bloc is in the news, Byron Dorgan delivers his farewell speech on the Senate floor, Human Rights Day is tomorrow, sexist attacks continue on rape victims -- they are attacks on all victims and they need to stop, and more.

A US soldier has been announced dead by the military becoming the first soldier killed in Iraq this month. Xinhua quotes from the statement: "A soldier assigned to United States Forces-Iraq was killed on December 8 while conducting operations in southern Iraq." Bushra Juhi (AP) notes the death and that 2 police officers died this morning while on a Baghdad patrol. Reuters notes 1 Sahwa was shot dead in Taji, and, dropping back to yesterday for both, 1 police officer was shot dead in Baghad and Omar Jassim Mohammed (Supreme Judiciary Council's auditing department head) was shot deadin Baghdad.

The violence continues in Iraq including a new wave of violence targeting Iraqi Christians which began (this latest wave) with an assault on Our Lady of Salvation Church in Baghdad October 31st which left at least 70 people and at least another seventy injured. Prashant Rao (AFP) reports that today, 40 days after the attack, many Iraqi Christians attended prayers. Father Amir Jaje is quoted stating, "Today, we began the prayers, and tomorrow we will have the mass to mark 40 daays. Many of the participants in the ceremony today were present during the attacks or were related to victims of the attack -- they all needed some moral support. Despite the terror and the violence that happened here, they came here once again and expressed their love for those who died." Wednesday, Alsumaria TV quoted Pope Benedict XVI stating, "Respect for the rights of all is a requisite for civil coexistence. May this, our prayer to the Lord and our solidarity bring hope to those who are suffering. I am thinking about many difficult situations, like the continual attacks against Christians and Muslims in Iraq." And they noted, "Iraq's Immigration and Displaced Directorate in Dahuk Province announced that it has received more than 80 Christian families displaced from Baghdad and Mosul in fear of armed attacks. The Directorate expects more families to move soon." AKI notes today that Basra has just lost 40 Christian families who have fled due to safety concern.

Iraq's still not safe. And it still has no executive government (the president is a ceremonial post, the Parliament is legislative). Sam Dagher (Wall St. Journal) reports today that politicians are scrambling for posts in Nouri's cabinet: "Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki has the better part of this month to name government ministers from the big winning parties in March elections, after rival factions agreed to a power-sharing deal last month. To do so, he has fallen back on a controversial points system that seeks to match the relative prestige of each cabinet portfolio with a party's electoral performance." Al Iraq Net is reporting that Moqtada al-Sadr's bloc is getting the post of Deputy Prime Minister. And Currency Newshounds reports that the Parliament is set to meet Sunday with the budget as one of the topics on deck. It's the appearance of movement, if not actual movement.

March 7th, Iraq concluded Parliamentary elections. The Guardian's editorial board noted in August, "These elections were hailed prematurely by Mr Obama as a success, but everything that has happened since has surely doused that optimism in a cold shower of reality." 163 seats are needed to form the executive government (prime minister and council of ministers). When no single slate wins 163 seats (or possibly higher -- 163 is the number today but the Parliament added seats this election and, in four more years, they may add more which could increase the number of seats needed to form the executive government), power-sharing coalitions must be formed with other slates, parties and/or individual candidates. (Eight Parliament seats were awarded, for example, to minority candidates who represent various religious minorities in Iraq.) Ayad Allawi is the head of Iraqiya which won 91 seats in the Parliament making it the biggest seat holder. Second place went to State Of Law which Nouri al-Maliki, the current prime minister, heads. They won 89 seats. Nouri made a big show of lodging complaints and issuing allegations to distract and delay the certification of the initial results while he formed a power-sharing coalition with third place winner Iraqi National Alliance -- this coalition still does not give them 163 seats. November 10th a power sharing deal resulted in the Parliament meeting for the second time and voting in a Speaker. And then Iraqiya felt double crossed on the deal and the bulk of their members stormed out of the Parliament. David Ignatius (Washington Post) explains, "The fragility of the coalition was dramatically obvious Thursday as members of the Iraqiya party, which represents Sunnis, walked out of Parliament, claiming that they were already being double-crossed by Maliki. Iraqi politics is always an exercise in brinkmanship, and the compromises unfortunately remain of the save-your-neck variety, rather than reflecting a deeper accord. " After that, Jalal Talabani was voted President of Iraq. Talabani then named Nouri as the prime minister-delegate. If Nouri can meet the conditions outlined in Article 76 of the Constitution (basically nominate ministers for each council and have Parliament vote to approve each one with a minimum of 163 votes each time and to vote for his council program) within thirty days, he becomes the prime minister. If not, Talabani must name another prime minister-delegate. . In 2005, Iraq took four months and seven days to pick a prime minister-delegate. It took eight months and two days to name Nouri as prime minister-delegate. His first go-round, on April 22, 2006, his thirty day limit kicked in. May 20, 2006, he announced his cabinet -- sort of. Sort of because he didn't nominate a Minister of Defense, a Minister of Interior and a Minister of a Natioanl Security. This was accomplished, John F. Burns wrote in "For Some, a Last, Best Hope for U.S. Efforts in Iraq" (New York Times), only with "muscular" assistance from the Bush White House. Nouri declared he would be the Interior Ministry temporarily. Temporarily lasted until June 8, 2006. This was when the US was able to strong-arm, when they'd knocked out the other choice for prime minister (Ibrahim al-Jaafari) to install puppet Nouri and when they had over 100,000 troops on the ground in Iraq. Nouri had no competition. That's very different from today. The Constitution is very clear and it is doubtful his opponents -- including within his own alliance -- will look the other way if he can't fill all the posts in 30 days. As Leila Fadel (Washington Post) observes, "With the three top slots resolved, Maliki will now begin to distribute ministries and other top jobs, a process that has the potential to be as divisive as the initial phase of government formation." Jane Arraf (Christian Science Monitor) points out, "Maliki now has 30 days to decide on cabinet posts - some of which will likely go to Iraqiya - and put together a full government. His governing coalition owes part of its existence to followers of hard-line cleric Muqtada al Sadr, leading Sunnis and others to believe that his government will be indebted to Iran." The stalemate ends when the country has a prime minister. It is now nine months, two days and counting. Thursday November 25th, Nouri was finally 'officially' named prime minister-designate. Leila Fadel (Washington Post) explained, "In 30 days, he is to present his cabinet to parliament or lose the nomination." Steven Lee Myers (New York Times) added, "Even if Mr. Maliki meets the 30-day deadline in late December -- which is not a certainty, given the chronic disregard for legal deadlines in Iraqi politics -- the country will have spent more than nine months under a caretaker government without a functioning legislature. Many of Iraq's most critical needs -- from basic services to investment -- have remained unaddressed throughout the impasse." Jane Arraf (Al Jazeera) offered, "He has an extremely difficult task ahed of him, these next 30 days are going to be a very tough sell for all of these parties that all want something very important in this government. It took a record eight months to actually come up with this coalition, but now what al-Maliki has to do is put all those people in the competing positions that backed him into slots in the government and he has a month to day that from today."

Turning to the US where Anthony Welsch (WBIR -- link has text and video) reports the war contractor EOD Techonolgy had their Lenoir City and Roane County offices raided by federal agents last night: "Immigrations and Customs Enforcement, the FBI, and agents from the office the Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction combed through offices at EOD's Roane County facility, loading up large boxes and hauling them to a back room." Josh Flory (Knoxville News Sentinel) adds, "As many as a dozen agents, most wearing blue, Federal Agent windbreakers, were on site during the day, going in and out of the buildings. Agents were seen unloading equipment from unmarked vehicles and carrying paperwork between the various buildings on the EOD Technology campus. The agents also were seen escorting several occupants of the buildings to their vehicles."

At this point, no one's explaining the raids. Previous work examining war contractors has been done by the Senate Democratic Policy Committee. Last week, Senator Byron Dorgan, Chair of the DPC, gave an overview on the Senate floor of what the DPC has encountered.

Senator Byron Dorgan: We've had whistle blowers come in. A woman came in and she told us she was working at a recreational facility in the war theater -- and that is, at the base, there's a recreational facility where you can go in and play pool and play ping pong and do various things. It was a facility with many different rooms. Well you were to -- She worked for Kellogg Brown and Root and she was to keep track of how many people came into the facility because they got paid based on how many people came into the facility. She said, "What they told me to do was to keep track of how many people came into each room and that's what we billed the government for." If somebody came in and went through three rooms, the government got billed for three visits by soldiers. And she said, "I went to the people in charge at our base and I said, 'This is fraud. We can't do this. We're defrauding the government'." She said, "They put in detention, in a room under guard, immediately and sent me out of the country the next day." It is the story at virtually all of the hearings that we have had. Now the point of it is two-fold. One, as I said, to protect America's soldiers and to do right by the men and women who've gone to war because this country has asked them to. But the second thing is, on behalf of the American tax payer, to decide if we are deep in debt, if we are choking on debt and deficit, to continue doing what we know is wrong, shoveling these contracts out the door without adequate accountability, is something we have to pay attention to.

Senator Dorgan chose not to run for re-election this year and is stepping down. It will be a huge loss for the Senate and for the country. Along with the DPC, Byron Dorgan currently chairs the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs, the Senate Energy and Water Development Subcomittee and the Senate Subcommittee on Aviation Operations, Safety and Security. Today saw the House pass the reauthorization of the Special Diabetes Program (the Senate passed it yesterday) and this was among the many issues Senator Dorgan worked on. He declared today, "Reauthorization of the Special Diabetes Program is critically important in our nation's growing effort to combat this devastating disease. The Special Diabetes Program is a smart federal investment -- leading to important discoveries and clinical advances as well as providing crucial and often life-saving programs to Native Americans." His office notes: "Today, more than 24 million people have diabetes, which is an increase of more than four-fold over the last 30 years. Native Americans suffer from diabetes at more than twice the rate of the general population in the US. In fact, in some tribal communities the rate of diabetes has reached over 60 percent."

After making a name for himself in North Dakota's state politics, Byron Dorgan was elected to Congress in the 1980 election and served in the House of Representatives from 1981 through 1992. That last year, 1992, he ran for the US Senate and won. He would be re-elected in 1998 and again in 2004. We'll note approximately seven minutes of the twenty-nine minute farewell speech he gave today on the Senate floor.

Senator Byron Dorgan: Those of us who are leaving the Congress at the end of the year are given the opportunity to make a farewell speech but more it's an opportunity to say thank you to a lot of people that we owe a thank you to and to colleagues, to family and to the staff here in the Senate and our staffs and the people of North Dakota, in this case, who gave me the opportunity to serve -- It's the opportunity for me to say thank you. One of my colleagues the other day talked about the number of people who have served in the United States Senate. Since the beginning of our country, there have been 1918 people who have served in the United States Senate. When I signed in -- you sign on the line -- I was number 1802 and there have been 212 senators with whom I have served in the years that I have been in the Senate. It's hard to get here and it's also hard to leave here. But all of us do leave and the Senate always continues. And when finally you do leave, you understand that this is the most unique legislative body in the world.

Now I arrived here 30 years ago -- in Congress. And when we all show up the first day, we feel so very important and we believe that the weight of the world rests on our shoulders and then we begin getting mail from home. And I have long described a letter that was sort of leavening to me, sent to me by a school teacher early on after I arrived here. And her class was to do a project, "To write to Dorgan in Washington DC." And I paged through the 20 letters from fourth grade students and one of them said, "Dear Mr. Dorgan, I know who you are. I see you on television sometimes. My dad watches you on television too. Boy, does he get mad." And so I knew [laughter from the Senate floor] -- And so I knew the interests of public service, of trying to satisify all the various interests in our country. It is important, it seems to me, that we do the right thing as best we can and as best we see it. That Dad from that letter showed up at a good number of my meetings over the years, I think. Didn't introduce himself. But in most cases, the people that I represented over these many years were ordinary folks that loved their country, raised their families, paid their bills and wanted us to do the right thing for our country's future.

Now I have a lot of really interesting memories from having served here. Twelve years in the US House and 18 years in the US Senate. The first week I came to Washington in the US House, I stopped to see the oldest member of the House, Claude Pepper. I'd read so much about him, wanted to meet him, walked into his office and his office was like a museum with a lot of old things in it, really interesting things. He'd been here for a long, long, long time. And I've never forgotten what I saw behind his chair: Two photographs.

The first photograph was of Orville and Wilbur Wright December 17, 1903 making the first airplane flight, signed: "To Congressman Claude Pepper with admiration, Orville Wright." And beneath it, a photograph of Neil Armstrong stepping on the surface of the moon, signed: "To Congressman Pepper, with regards, Neil Armstrong."

And I'm thinking to myself, "Here's a living American -- in one lifetime -- has an autographed picture of the person who learned to fly and the person who flew to the moon. Think of the unbelievable progress in a lifetime. And what is the difference between learning to fly and flying to the moon?

Well it wasn't measured on that wall in inches -- although those photographs were only four or five years apart. It's measured in education, in knowledge, in a burst of accomplishments in an unprecedented century -- and this country has been enormously blessed during this period. The hallmark, it seems to me, of the century we just completed was self-sacrifice and common purpose, a sense of community, commitment to country and especially, especially leadership.

In America, leadership has been so important in this government we call self-government. And there was a book written by [David] McCullough about John Adams and John Adams described that question of leadership. He would travel in Europe, representing this new country and he would write letters back to Abigail. And in his letters to Abigail, he would plaintively ask the question, "Where will the leadership come from for this new country we're starting? Who will become the leaders? Who will be the leaders for this new nation?"

And then in the next letter to Abigail, he would again ask, "Where will the leadership come from?" And then he would say, "There's only us. Really only us.There's me. There's George Washington. There's Ben Franklin. There's Thomas Jefferson. There's [Alexander] Hamilton, [George] Mason and [James] Madison. But there is only us" -- he would plantively say to Abigail.

In the rearview mirror of history, of course, the "only us" is some of the greatest human talent probably ever assembled. But it is interesting to me that every generation has asked the same question that John Adams has asked: Where will the leadership come from for this country? Who will be the leaders?

And the answer to that question now is here in this room. It's always been in this room. My colleagues -- men and women -- tested by the rigors of a campaign, chosen by citizens of their state to say, "You lead. You provide leadership for this country." Now for all the criticism about this chamber and those who serve in this chamber, for all of that criticism, I say that the most talented men and women with whom I have ever worked are the men and women of the United States Senate -- on both sides of the aisle.

They live in glass houses. Their mistakes are obvious and painful. They fight. They disagree. Then they agree. They dance around issues. Posture. Delay. But always, always there is that moment -- the moment of being part of something big, consequential, important. The moment of being part of something bigger than yourself. And at that moment, for all of us at different times, there's this acute awareness of why we were sent here and the role the US Senate plays in the destiny of this country.

If we had room today for more, we would note it. We'll note some more tomorrow or else at Third on Sunday. For those wondering, Senator Dorgan does qualify for coverage in the Iraq snapshot. He's done some very strong work uncvoering corruption in war contracting and, most importantly, documenting the very real damage US service members and contractors serving in Iraq and Afghanistan suffered from having been exposed to toxic chemicals. Video of his speech will be posted to his Senate website either later today or tomorrow.

Also providing a service is WikiLeaks and, from their Twitter feed, we'll note this:

Julian Assange is the face of WikiLeaks, he is not all of WikiLeaks, just one part of the organization. He has been accused of rape and sexual assault. He is innocent at this point and may remain so (and if there is no trial, then the matter ends with him innocent). But the women making accusations are innocent at this point as well. And smear jobs -- there's basically one which all the losers refashion and repeat -- on the women are smear jobs on all victims of rape because these attacks encourage and lead to other attacks. The attackers?

As Joan Wilder (Kathleen Turner in Romancing The Stone, screenplay by Diane Thomas) observed, "But if there was one law of the west, it's that bastards have brothers who seemed to ride forever." And they seem to thrive on sexism. Yes, as with Tuesday's snapshot and Wednesday's snapshot, we have to deal with the attacks on two women over rape charges. Faux feminist Nicole Colson (US Socialist Worker) declares, "Rape and sexual assault are very serious charges that deserve investigation. But it's impossible to take the charges against [Julian] Assange at face value given the nature of the attack on him by the world's superpowers." What is about Colson that forever finds her attacking women? Throughout 2008, she used sexism to trash Hillary but then women only pop in Nicole's writing to be trashed. She might want to take a look at that. She might also want to take a look at "impossible to take the charges . . . at face value." Marina S. (It's Not A Zero Sum Game) observes:

No, what this is about, as Cath Elliott wrote on Lib Con a few days back, is how quickly all pretensions to feminist sympathies give way to a "bros before hos" attitude among men on the left once one of their own is in the dock (though in fairness she expressed it with more class). It's easy enough to march at the back, mumbling feminist slogans out of time because you don't quite know the words, when it's some sleazy capitalist or smarmy Republican in the firing line; statistically, it's more likely to be one of those guys in some jacuzzi showgirl snorting scenario, anyway.But one of ours? Julian Assange, fearless defier of the Keystone Cops wannabes that are US officials trying to wipe the egg of their faces? Courageous snook cocker at misspeaking power-drunk bank functionaries? Heroic exposer of all that is ignoble and slightly ridiculous about contemporary diplomatic statecraft? Impossible! It's a conspiracy! A politically motivated witch hunt! A miscarriage of justice! A honey trap! Fame seeking! Misuse of Interpol resources!

When an article suggesting that a man accused of sex crimes is himself an innocent victim, it feeds into the prevailing misogynistic anti-woman narrative that says that all women who accuse men of rape are lying, and that there's no such thing as rape, there is instead just bad sex, or as John Band put it "poor bedroom etiquette".

And we join in with that 'lying women/bad laws' shtick, we're just adding our name to a whole host of sites and other media organisations keen to deny women's experiences, and that basically tell women that the men are sticking together again therefore this is a site where we really don't belong.

That's why I felt it important to speak out about this issue. Not because I believe Assange to be guilty, but because as a feminist I think it discredits us to just blithely assume that he's not.

Both of the women above reside in the UK. On US shores, it's so very telling that all the same sexists (and liars) from 2008 can be found trashing the women. Take Dave Lindorff -- no link to trash but you can find his garbage at David Swanson's site (and maybe David can explain why he's posting attacks on two women?) -- who puts the term rape in quotes as he reidicules the women. This is Dave Lindorff, please remember, who was a Barack supporter who used sexism to trash Hillary and whose 'reasoning' for supporting Barack was suspect at best: "a black candidate who has risked jail by doing drugs". As those paying attention throughout 2008 quickly grasped, the sexism is coming from men and women on the left, not just men on the left. (I'm not interested in the right-wing for this conversation, let them police themselves. But on our side we're supposed to care about equality.) Naomi Klein's also weighed in with as much as she can manage -- a Tweet. Leading to this response Tweet from Clare Cochrane:

This, right here, is what makes rape an insidious crime. Those we admire, those we respect, we tend to minimize, deflect, or outright deny such a charge against them. What we as a society have got to come to realize is that a rapist can do good in other areas and still have raped someone. A rapist can be someone who does works we admire. A rapist can be someone whom we have previously respected, and whose political and ideological beliefs mirror our own. Which is why an organization or political thought should stand alone, divorced from its most vociferous defenders and/or creators. Wikileaks needs to stand or fall on its own merits, and we need to defend or decry Wikileaks on its own merits (or lack thereof). What we cannot do is excuse Julian Assange from even having to defend himself against a charge because such a charge may hurt his organization. Which is where Klein is wrong again. Yes, women's freedom was used as a battle cry in Afghanistan. Yes, it was the wrong cry, not in the least because we have done a piss poor job of securing the safety and freedom of women since entering Afghanistan. But Julian Assange may have actually committed rape. And there are laws against rape. And he can and should be charged with the crime. This isn't some nebulous "protect teh women" battle cry.

I don't know if Julian Assange is or is not a rapist. I know he is being held in connection to a crime. I know that the support he is receiving from Klein is, to be frank, beneath her. As Jessica Valenti highlighted, one of the charges facing Assange is not merely that he had sex with a woman without the condom she required but that he engaged in sexual intercourse with a sleeping woman. That last one? That's describing rape, pure and simple. It's rape, because a sleeping woman does not have the ability to consent to sex. These two women deserve their day in court. If their accusations are true, they deserve every measure of justice that can be awarded to them.

As we noted last week, Naomi Klein is not a feminist. Her entire life has been about rejecting her mother (a feminist). She's still an angry little child (hilarious photos taken by Wally in DC today of Naomi which will run in Friday's gina & krista roundrobin, FYI). She's done nothing for feminism. Just because she's left and a woman don't wrongly assume she's done a damn thing for feminism. It's amazing what an issue the attacks are in England while in America . . . So much silence. And we find that the same women who were silent on the sexist attacks on Hillary are again 'taking one for the team' and sitting this out. Laurie Penny (New Statesman) observes:

I have no idea whether Assange, who firmly denies the accusations, did or did not commit sex attacks in Sweden last August. But just as we would condemn anyone who pronounced him guilty at this early stage, should we also not be concerned that many liberals, some of whom would count themselves feminists, have leapt to the conclusion that Assange must be the innocent victim of a smear campaign? Some have gone further, actively attacking the women in question and accusing them of colluding in a conspiracy to destroy Assange. This plays easily into the narrative that most women who accuse men of rape are liars, and most men who attract such accusations are just saucy scamps with, as the commentator John Band put it, "poor bedroom etiquette".

The attacks need to stop and the number of people calling out the attacks will continue to increase. Robert Knight, Ray McGovern, et al think they're helping Julian Assange by attacking two women. They're not and they're not helping the left as we see just how sexist so many of the men -- and a large number of the women as well -- can be. In other news, Jack Healey (Huffington Post) notes an earlier time when human rights and human rights groups were increasing in number and how it changed:

Then, 9/11 occurred and America lost thousands of people. American anger channeled fear instead of courage; Iraq is invaded for unknown reasons still; torture begins in the jails of Iraq by our forces; water boarding, a torture technique, is used often and repeatedly; secret prisons are set up in many countries and we send prisoners to these places to be tortured by others; Guantanamo becomes a prison of infamy and reduces the respect for law to this day; unmanned drones are put into frequent use in targeted killings as weapons with no accountability while official statistics on the number of innocent civilians killed are absent (some studies suggest ten to fifty civilians are killed for every one militant insurgent); the new President enlarges the war in Afghanistan; Bagram prison rivals Guantanamo in another attempt to reduce our level of decency and thus up the hatred of American forces in the region; and all the while, Bin Laden roams the earth freely ten years after his hits on our cities. American efforts to mix security issues with human rights lowered the prestige, interest and support of human rights. Press and media move as the governments move--away from human rights. What happened to the momentum, to the wave that swept human rights through our streets and past our doors? It seems as though the tide has gone out. Instead of getting depressed and angry and disillusioned, I offer a model to emulate who I got to know over three meetings and one letter. His name was Peter Benenson, the founder of Amnesty International. Most of the world does not know him or about him: he never sought the lime light, the TV shows or the award chase, and he even refused to go to Oslo when Amnesty won the Nobel Peace Prize in 1977. A simple lawyer in London, Peter refused the knighthood nonsense of the crown. He had time to write a long, warm and personal note to me once I left Amnesty after twelve years, but you could not get him to a fancy dinner. He was a humble man who sought solace in the Catholic shrines of Europe after a car accident. But make no mistake, his idea and action of that idea changed the world. This Human Rights Day is a time to stop and remember how Peter Benenson brought that idea to life.

The promotion and protection of human rights has been a major preoccupation for the United Nations since 1945, when the Organization's founding nations resolved that the horrors of The Second World War should never be allowed to recur. Respect for human rights and human dignity "is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world", the General Assembly declared three years later in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. In 1950, all States and interested organizations were invited by the General Assembly to observe 10 December as Human Rights Day (resolution 423(V)). The Day marks the anniversary of the Assembly's adoption of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in 1948. Over the years, a whole network of human rights instruments and mechanisms has been developed to ensure the primacy of human rights and to confront human rights violations wherever they occur.

Human Rights Day 2010 on 10 December recognizes the work of human rights defenders worldwide who act to end discrimination. Acting alone or in groups within their communities, every day human rights defenders work to end discrimination by campaigning for equitable and effective laws, reporting and investigating human rights violations and supporting victims.While some human rights defenders are internationally renowned, many remain anonymous and undertake their work often at great personal risk to themselves and their families.